“Happy Birthday” copyright defense: Those “words” and “text” are ours

Even if the owner wasn't first, "Copyright law requires originality, not novelty."

There may be no song more widely sung in America than "Happy Birthday," but it isn't free to sing. Warner/Chappell music licensing, which has long claimed copyright to the words, typically dings filmmakers and TV producers a few thousand bucks for a "synchronization license" any time the song is used in video. Warner reported that by the 1990s the "Happy Birthday" licensing enterprise was pulling in upwards of $2 million annually.

In June, a filmmaker who paid $1,500 to use the song in a documentary (called "Happy Birthday") challenged Warner/Chappell in court. The filmmaker's lawyers argued that the 1935 copyright isn't valid—at most, it covers a particular piano arrangement and a second verse to Happy Birthday which has no commercial value. The melody has been around since 1893, they say, and the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics were in wide use by the early 1900s. The plaintiffs hoped to form a class action and make Warner pay back everyone who's paid a license fee since mid-2009.

A status update filed in court on Monday offers a first glimpse of some of the defenses Warner may use. In a brief statement, first mentioned by The Hollywood Reporter, Warner lawyers explain it's on the plaintiffs to prove that the 1935 copyright registration "was not intended to cover the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You."

Even if the plaintiffs show that the lyrics were published elsewhere, "this would not show that the author of the lyrics copyrighted under certificate E51990 copied those lyrics from somewhere else," argue Warner's lawyers. "Copyright law requires originality, not novelty."

The burden is on the plaintiffs "to disprove the validity of Warner/Chappell's copyright and the facts stated in the registration," argues the defense. And that registration clearly references "words" and "text," which they believe is the traditional "Happy Birthday" verse. Warner's lawyers write:

The plaintiffs are claiming that the words were published in a variety of formats pre-1935. The amended complaint filed in December lays out the most detailed version of their argument.

"Even though the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You and the song Happy Birthday to You had not been fixed in a tangible medium of expression, the public began singing Happy Birthday to You no later than the early 1900s," write the filmmaker's lawyers.

The lyrics were published as lyrics in a Methodist Episcopal Church song book in 1911, which did not attribute ownership or identify any copyright for the song. An Indiana educator's guidebook described children singing the words "happy birthday to you" as early as 1901, although it did not print lyrics. The plaintiffs' complaint suggests that pre-1935 of the lyrics were, in fact, abundant: "By 1912, various companies (such as Cable Company Chicago) had begun producing unauthorized printings of sheet music which included the song known today as Happy Birthday (i.e., the melody of Good Morning to You with the lyrics changed to those of Happy Birthday)."

The parties have agreed to a schedule that has discovery on the copyright issue continuing through September of this year. Once they collect the evidence, the two sides will submit motions arguing their case in November. The copyright validity issue will apparently be decided on the papers, as the status update does not include dates for a trial or a pre-trial conference.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Well in all fairness at least Mickey Mouse is still being invested in, and new content is being made with him. Can't have that be public if the owner is still using the property.

But this "song" is not being used, is not being recorded again, it's not being re-arranged or anythign of the sort. The "owners" are not contributing anything to anybody, and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it for all eternity.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

Congress is parroting the RIAA/MPAA who say that the founding fathers intended that if you buy the rights to someone else's creative work, it should provide royalties for you and your children and your children's children or else no one will ever bother to make another movie.

Happy Birthday to YouYou live in a zooYou look like a monkeyAnd you smell like one too.

Yes they are copyrighted

But it's fair use to sing them at school or a party or quote like you just did (good thing too, otherwise you and I would be liable for criminal copyright infringement).

In general you only have to "pay up" if you do something commercial with it. That's why Mega Upload and occasionally even Google gets in trouble for copying people's works — because they're a commercial business running ads, while Archive.org has no issues making blatant copies of everyone's stuff. They're non profit.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Well in all fairness at least Mickey Mouse is still being invested in, and new content is being made with him. Can't have that be public if the owner is still using the property.

But this "song" is not being used, is not being recorded again, it's not being re-arranged or anythign of the sort. The "owners" are not contributing anything to anybody, and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it for all eternity.

Not at all. If Mickey Mouse became public domain, as he should have in 1978, Disney would not be precluded from investing in and making new properties with that character. And those new properties would be covered by new copyrights. It's just that other people would be able to as well, and could publish copies of the original cartoons without paying royalties to Disney.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

If you create something, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren deserve to cash in on it! It's the American Way! What're you? A commie?

(I think that succinctly sums up the ethical, moral, legal and financial arguments)

Yea, which is why so many people feels bad about the word entitlement in US.

While I understand about protecting the children in the future, profits and success are not something that can be guaranteed toward the future. It shouldn't work like this. Just as the original author worked hard for it, his children and so on should as well.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Well in all fairness at least Mickey Mouse is still being invested in, and new content is being made with him. Can't have that be public if the owner is still using the property.

But this "song" is not being used, is not being recorded again, it's not being re-arranged or anythign of the sort. The "owners" are not contributing anything to anybody, and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it for all eternity.

The Mickey Mouse trademark is still being used, and new content is still be created with the Mickey Mouse character. What's being protected is the specific work, in this case Steamboat Willie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie I don't think Disney would suffer real harm by this particular work becoming public domain.

Trademarks don't expire while in use. The Coca-Cola company dates to 1892, there's no danger of Coca-Cola becoming public domain. Protect Mickey Mouse with a trademark, stop screwing around with copyright law.

Can someone with better knowledge of the subject please explain how this song is not public domain yet?

It was copyrighted in 1935. On the premise that the original copyright is valid, that means it would not have expired yet.

The issue in the court is the claim that the copyright should not be valid because it had been widely performed for over three decades prior to the filing of the copyright (and possibly the copyright was not even filed by the creator). If they can show that (and it sounds like they can in my opinion), then I would hope the copyright would be invalidated.

Can someone with better knowledge of the subject please explain how this song is not public domain yet?

It was copyrighted in 1935. On the premise that the original copyright is valid, that means it would not have expired yet.

The issue in the court is the claim that the copyright should not be valid because it had been widely performed for over three decades prior to the filing of the copyright (and possibly the copyright was not even filed by the creator). If they can show that (and it sounds like they can in my opinion), then I would hope the copyright would be invalidated.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Well in all fairness at least Mickey Mouse is still being invested in, and new content is being made with him. Can't have that be public if the owner is still using the property.

But this "song" is not being used, is not being recorded again, it's not being re-arranged or anythign of the sort. The "owners" are not contributing anything to anybody, and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it for all eternity.

The Mickey Mouse trademark is still being used, and new content is still be created with the Mickey Mouse character. What's being protected is the specific work, in this case Steamboat Willie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie I don't think Disney would suffer real harm by this particular work becoming public domain.

Trademarks don't expire while in use. The Coca-Cola company dates to 1892, there's no danger of Coca-Cola becoming public domain. Protect Mickey Mouse with a trademark, stop screwing around with copyright law.

Exactly! Mickey Mouse is a trademark and as long as Disney doesn't stop using Mickey Mouse for a substantial length of time, it will be trademarked into perpetuity. The copyright applies to specific films or other artistic works but not the character itself.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

American citizens receive revenue from it, and a lot of the revenue is paid by non American citizens who's government has signed the Berne Convention.

So basically, copyright is good for the economy. It brings money into the country.

And who is still buying films from 80 years ago? How much money does that bring to the US?

They're not, because it's almost impossible to buy the 80 year old ones. Since you can't get the old ones people all around the world (and also TV networks all around the world) have to buy the newer cartoons like Shreck and Monsters Inc.

If it was possible to make copies of the 80 year old content, less people would be interested in paying money for the modern stuff.

*sigh* I'm getting downvoted for explaining why congress does what they do. I didn't say I agree with them... I hate copyright. I even voted for the Pirate Party in my last election.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

Apparently the founding fathers intended that if you buy the rights to someone else's creative work it should provide royalties for you and your children and your children's children or else no one will ever bother to make another movie.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited Times != author's life + 70 years. Nor does promote the progress of science/useful arts == the rights to keep profiting on it forever.

Not sure why the Supreme Court even reject this argument, it's clearly stopping the progress if nobody can't even sing a happy birthday song that's a hundred year old without getting bent over for royalties.

If it was being published and sung in the nineteen-teens, whoever applied for the copyright in 1935 committed fraud. The original applicant (or his lawyer) must swear that he is the creator, or that he hired the creator in a work-for-hire. Copyright doesn't go to a non-creator who is first-to-file.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

That's what the US Constitution said in 1787, and at the time it was 14 years (from the date the work was created, not from the date the author dies).

But modern day copyright law is based on the Berne Convention which pretty much every country in the world has agreed to uphold. The language there is "all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms".

But it's fair use to sing them at school or a party or quote like you just did (good thing too, otherwise you and I would be liable for criminal copyright infringement).

In general you only have to "pay up" if you do something commercial with it.....

In general, it's a criminal offense if you do something commercial with it. The kids at your birthday party are guilty of a civil offense. It's the same general principle as copying a DVD, or downloading from Pirate Bay: you may not have made money doing it, but you're still liable for civil penalties.

$1,500 each to cover the performing license, should just about cover it. No jail time. Although we are working on that.

Whether or not the earlier quote was fair use is also a complicated question, particularly since the work was quoted in its entirety. We'll settle for $750, on that one.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

Apparently the founding fathers intended that if you buy the rights to someone else's creative work it should provide royalties for you and your children and your children's children or else no one will ever bother to make another movie.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited Times != author's life + 70 years. Nor does promote the progress of science/useful arts == the rights to keep profiting on it forever.

Not sure why the Supreme Court even reject this argument, it's clearly stopping the progress if nobody can't even sing a happy birthday song that's a hundred year old without getting bent over for royalties.

Because limited time means that it must someday enter public domain - the problem is that a million years is still technically limited. The Supreme Court is upholding the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

Apparently the founding fathers intended that if you buy the rights to someone else's creative work it should provide royalties for you and your children and your children's children or else no one will ever bother to make another movie.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited Times != author's life + 70 years. Nor does promote the progress of science/useful arts == the rights to keep profiting on it forever.

Not sure why the Supreme Court even reject this argument, it's clearly stopping the progress if nobody can't even sing a happy birthday song that's a hundred year old without getting bent over for royalties.

Thank you for explaining the joke I made. I'm not sure anyone would have gotten it otherwise.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

Apparently the founding fathers intended that if you buy the rights to someone else's creative work it should provide royalties for you and your children and your children's children or else no one will ever bother to make another movie.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited Times != author's life + 70 years. Nor does promote the progress of science/useful arts == the rights to keep profiting on it forever.

Not sure why the Supreme Court even reject this argument, it's clearly stopping the progress if nobody can't even sing a happy birthday song that's a hundred year old without getting bent over for royalties.

Because limited time means that it must someday enter public domain - the problem is that a million years is still technically limited. The Supreme Court is upholding the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

The Supreme Court has recognized a role for the elected branches in setting certain policies, as long as the letter of the constitution has not been breached. One example is the exact definition of "public use" in the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a case about a decade ago (forget when exactly) they ruled essentially that the legislature is in a better position than a court to determine what is/isn't an appropriate "public use", relying on the legislature's more direct accountability to the people. (More direct than lifetime appointed judges, at least.)

As usual, if you don't like copyright terms and haven't at least written your representatives, then you're really not in a position to complain.

In the US it's now life+70 years, likely to be extended to life+95 years in the near future. Can't have Mickey Mouse become publicly owned. That would be communism, and worse, in keeping with the wording of the constitution.

Well in all fairness at least Mickey Mouse is still being invested in, and new content is being made with him. Can't have that be public if the owner is still using the property.

But this "song" is not being used, is not being recorded again, it's not being re-arranged or anythign of the sort. The "owners" are not contributing anything to anybody, and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it for all eternity.

So, does that make this kind of business a non-practicing Copyright Assertion Entity, i.e. a copyright troll, by analogy with patent trolls?

Christ, what BS reasons have the Congress given to even justify such a thing?

American citizens receive revenue from it, and a lot of the revenue is paid by non American citizens who's government has signed the Berne Convention.

So basically, copyright is good for the economy. It brings money into the country.

That's actually incorrect, something is good for the economy if it encourages money to change hands. That includes things like hiring employees, and otherwise paying the costs of producing something.

In this case, a big corporation is getting rewarded repeatedly and forever, without producing more content. Will that corporation use that money to hire more employees? No, it will produce less content (because they can now lean on those profits forever) and therefore hire fewer workers.

Copyrights that expire after a few years are good for the economy because they constantly encourage the creation of more content, which requires more employees to be on hand, without creating a cash cow that can be ridden forever.

The Mickey Mouse trademark is still being used, and new content is still be created with the Mickey Mouse character. What's being protected is the specific work, in this case Steamboat Willie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie I don't think Disney would suffer real harm by this particular work becoming public domain.

Trademarks don't expire while in use. The Coca-Cola company dates to 1892, there's no danger of Coca-Cola becoming public domain. Protect Mickey Mouse with a trademark, stop screwing around with copyright law.

What annoys me particularly about Disney is that they have made so much money off retelling stories that have entered the public domain (Pinocchio, Little Mermaid, Snow White, etc.), yet at the same time prevent anyone else from reinterpreting the works that they (Disney) have produced.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

Exactly, Mikhail..... a lot of stuff today is being lost because of copyright and the fear of people to back up that stuff in some manner.

I.E. one book I have been looking for AGES for called "The Colonel's Nieces" written nearly 90 years ago. I cannot find it because it is out of print and the only copies available are hellishly overpriced.... 1000 dollars in one case.

.... Why should a company pull $2 million in annual revenue on a single song back in ~1900s?

Why should anybody have copyrights that last as long as they live + 50 years.

Can anybody explain this? Why shouldn't the copyrights be limited to 20 years?

I really do not understand how allowing a person (life + 50 years) or a company (75 years) a legal monopoly promotes science and arts? It doesn't, it limits them for a long time (limited time does not mean the author's lifetime + 50 years).

Even If I wrote a book, I do not expect it to sustain my entire life and my children and would love others to work on my book after 20 years without fearing legal repercussions from me.

Works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in 17 U.S.C. § 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.

Patty Hill died in 1946, so this song should be out of copyright in 2016, unless they have it under one of the special terms in which case it could last until 2047.